them-men, that is to say, of everyday life. I must quote some
examples of such persons, taking care to select such as approach
nearest to our standard of wisdom. We read, for instance, that
Papus Aemilius was a close friend of Gaius Luscinus. History tells
us that they were twice consuls together, and colleagues in the
censorship. Again, it is on record that Manius Curius and Tiberius
Coruncanius were on the most intimate terms with them and with
each other. Now, we cannot even suspect that any one of these
men ever asked of his friend anything that militated against his
honour or his oath or the interests of the republic. In the case of
such men as these there is no point in saying that one of them
would not have obtained such a request if he had made it; for they
were men of the most scrupulous piety, and the making of such a
request would involve a breach of religious obligation no less than
the granting it. However, it is quite true that Gaius Carbo and
Gaius Cato did follow Tiberius Gracchus; and though his brother
Caius Gracchus did not do so at the time, he is now the most eager
of them all.

12. We may then lay down this rule of friendship-neither ask nor
consent to do what is wrong. For the plea "for friendship's sake" is
a discreditable one, and not to be admitted for a moment. This
rule holds good for all wrong-doing, but more especially in such as
involves disloyalty to the republic. For things have come to such a
point with us, my dear Fannius and Scaevola, that we are bound to
look somewhat far ahead to what is likely to happen to the
republic. The constitution, as known to our ancestors, has already
swerved somewhat from the regular course and the lines marked
out for it. Tiberius Gracchus made an attempt to obtain the power
of a king, or, I might rather say, enjoyed that power for a few